Angry Manipur

By: C Doungel

The dawn of freedom on 15th August 1947 ushered in the era with different connotations, particularly for Manipur and Naga Hills then. In Naga Hills, A.Z. Phizo declared Naga independence on 14th August ‘47 and launched freedom movement which though was considered for too advanced. For other neighbouring tribes/communities, India’s independence was looked upon as mere passing of power from whiteman (Britishers) to brown-men. Regardless of the polemics thrown around the merger issue of Manipur-whether forced, legal or illegal, it was taken as natural happening at that historical moment. With the euphoria of independence sweeping through the length and breath of India, Manipur tugged in the north-eastern corner accepted it as a fait-accompli because of the common religious ties (particularly of Hinduism) and also having faith in the safeguards provided in the merger agreement. Apart from provisions for more opportunities of employment and direct attention through central rule, the king was provided with privy purse. Manipur was made a part ‘C’ state and later a Union territory albeit sans provision to take care of hill affairs in place of Hills durbar.

Meanwhile Naga freedom movement in Naga Hills gained momentum which culminated in eruption of violent rebellion in 1956. Pandit Nehru who was then the Prime Minister dealt with much benevolence. Naga Hills was amalgamated with Tuensang Area in NEFA in 1957 and placed under External Affairs ministry. Statehood was given to Nagaland in 1963 after 16 points agreement was signed with Govt. of India in 1960. One point of the agreement provided that contiguous Naga areas could merge with consent of the people. Manipur Govt was not consulted while Assam could have been aware as Shree. B.P Chaliha was a member of Peace Committee headed by Shree. Jai Prakash Narayan. Kukis made feeble protests but they were not in any reckoning.

Insurgency in Nagaland did not stop. Rather, it spilled over to Manipur resulting in extension of ceasefire to Tamenglong and Ukhrul sub-divisions (now districts) and Mao sub-divisions (now Senapati segment). Momentum of pressure for merger receded for sometime but simmering discontentment grew in Manipur and Assam. These ultimately gave birth to UNLF/PREPAK/PLA/ULFA/KNA/KNF to counter the threat to Manipur and Assam territorial integrity. Mizos, who also realised that only violent revolt draws quicker attention and yields reward, took a similar course.

On the political front, pressure was mounting for statehood to be conferred to Manipur/Tripura. But whenever they pleaded their case before Government of India, stating that they are equally deserving, the stock answer they were given was that Nagaland is a unique and special case. Statehood to Manipur was belatedly given in 1972 and in the first Assembly general election, Naga integration was an important issue.

Mutually deterrent nature of insurgent groups inherent in their birth in Nagaland, Assam and Manipur, having created trans-border problem have thus grown more and more complex. Though NSCN (IM) is the mother of most insurgent groups, it has now become difficult for a single group to either take unilateral decision or thrash out solution with government by isolating the others. In fact, the others harbour deep-seated resentment for being relegated to secondary status despite the fact that they once considered themselves more civilized and advanced. They feel that Nagas of Manipur are lured by better opportunities available by grant of statehood to Nagaland first. They feel ignored when decisions concerning Manipur are taken behind their back. They are therefore coming out in open challenge of NSCN (IM) whom they feel are placed on a higher pedestal. They feel that they have to stand up for their wounded feelings and hurt pride. Thus there is a nagging desire to prove that they can be equally deadly.

Having no more faith that their case will be dealt with in a fair and just manner, even the civil society has joined in being belligerent this deeply embedded distrust would largely explain the psyche why such violent agitations erupted when there was extention of Cease-fire with NSCN (IM) “without territorial limits” in 2000 (which was late withdrawn) and on the killing of Thangjam Manorama in 2003 etc. to cite few examples.

Thus, violent agitations in Manipur are sometimes organised by civil organisations with backing of armed groups. At the same time, loyalties being on ethnic and communal lines, demonisation of one group is used to run down the other and breed violence. Common economic interest which can benefit all in the region are relegated to the background. The fragile law and order most of the time gets such a beating that they often break down completely. In the chaos, mobs get organised into some kind of “posse comitatus” in the form of JACs, Meira Paibis or AMADA etc. who themselves at times dispense justice.

The security forces no doubt have to perform very odious task but those in authority cannot always take the line of least resistance. It is understandable that those facing bullets in battlefields and exposed to risk of life always may not be in a position to “put on their best manners as in a dinner party”. All the same, there should not be complete breakdown of discipline or sense of fairness should not be cast away. The Armed Forces Special Power Act which is a lawless-law provides some legal protection (I wish that this abnoxious law is lifted as early as possible). Most human rights abuses by State Forces or Army including AR take place in violation of even this law.

As of today, the insurgency situation appears fluid and it will continue to remain so for some coming years. The state administration as also the Armed Forces or Para-military forces have to ensure that blatant violations of human rights do not take place.

Most hill based insurgent groups had entered into agreement with the Army for suspension of operations which to some extent is a sign of progress in the right direction. Some have political demands but others have not spelt out any. Rather some have earned notoriety mostly in kidnapping for ransom. Should they be treated as same?. Further, allegations are there about State Forces/Assam Rifles units protecting some of these groups because of gainful mutual interests. It is indeed a good thing that Army/ARs undertake many civic actions which give some healing touch but they are no substitute for being professional, firm and just. For, insurgency cannot be controlled by handing out candies alone.

The writer is a former member of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, and a member of the All India Congress Committee.